EDITORIAL
The Naked Shield
If it were not for the mammoth waste of taxpayers' money, the latest failure in the Bush administration's obstinate deployment of a totally unproven missile defense system could be titled Star Wars: The Farce. Two years after ponderously scripted flight tests had to be suspended because of widespread technical gaffes, the Pentagon tried again this week - and failed again. An interceptor rocket sat inert and shut itself down when the signal was given to take off after an invader missile bearing a mock warhead out in the Pacific.
The failure, at the cost of a mere $85 million, was the latest evidence that the missile shield, a complex grafting of various unproven technologies, remains firmly in the dream stage. Yet the administration is going ahead with hollow defense plans to soon "activate" the first missile silos along the Pacific coast in a ludicrous pretense called "evolutionary acquisition." This means spend and strut now, and worry about whether it will actually work later.
Where are the soaring Republican budget "hawks" of Congress as this faith-based shield rockets past a $130 billion development outlay, with $53 billion more to come across the next five years? In his first campaign, President Bush vowed to have the shield in place this year. But informed critics, including a group of 49 retired generals and admirals, wisely urged him to shelve the fake startup and divert more money into low-tech antiterror defenses at the nation's vulnerable ports, borders and nuclear weapons depots.
With rogue nations like North Korea working on nuclear missiles, a credible shield may someday be needed, but only after its efficacy has been proved. As it stands now, even a Pentagon analysis rates Star Wars a "case study" on how to rush toward failure.
Yet the administration seems firmly locked onto Samuel Beckett's bleak prescription for humanity: "Try again. Fail again. Fail better."
Full Version: The Naked Shield
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
Obviously the missile system is important to the fight against the terrorist ballistic missile systems and stuff flying in from down south
QUOTE(vfguenley @ Dec 16 2004, 01:42 PM)
Obviously the missile system is important to the fight against the terrorist ballistic missile systems and stuff flying in from down south
???????????????????? IT DOESN'T WORK!
don't forget, the missile defense system is part of the 'create your own reality' plan behind the War for a New American Century that the admin brought into office with them, published in September 2000: (PDF file) Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
Sure as hell hope it, like Scumsfeld's superbly managed wars, are not indicators of the rest of the 'believe your way into empire' crowd's plans.
but, hey! they've managed to exceed the percent of GDP the defense industry pals are getting, oddly similar to the deficit figures announced yesterday!
Sure as hell hope it, like Scumsfeld's superbly managed wars, are not indicators of the rest of the 'believe your way into empire' crowd's plans.
QUOTE
This report attempts to define those requirements. In particular, we need to:
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine
Corps.
CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled
programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of
space control.
EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
- defend the American homeland;
- fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
- perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
- transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
MODERNIZE CURRENT U.S. FORCES SELECTIVELY, proceeding with the F-22 program while increasing purchases of lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expanding submarine and surface combatant fleets; purchasing Comanche helicopters and medium-weight ground vehicles for the Army, and the V-22 Osprey “tilt-rotor” aircraft for the Marine
Corps.
CANCEL “ROADBLOCK” PROGRAMS such as the Joint Strike Fighter, CVX aircraft carrier, and Crusader howitzer system that would absorb exorbitant amounts of Pentagon funding while providing limited improvements to current capabilities. Savings from these canceled
programs should be used to spur the process of military transformation.
DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.
CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of
space control.
EXPLOIT THE “REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS” to insure the long-term superiority of U.S. conventional forces. Establish a two-stage transformation process which
- maximizes the value of current weapons systems through the application of advanced technologies, and,
- produces more profound improvements in military capabilities, encourages competition between single services and joint-service experimentation efforts.
but, hey! they've managed to exceed the percent of GDP the defense industry pals are getting, oddly similar to the deficit figures announced yesterday!
As an Engineer, I find it frustrating that most people turn Luddite whenever some particularly difficult program suffers a setback or failure. Nobody seems to realize that developing something that has never been done before into a reliable, mundane, off-the-shelf product with 99.999% reliability is an extraordinarily difficult thing. You're going trip over some stuff along the way.
But when there are failures, missteps, malfunctions - the Luddites step forward and say, "See? It's impossible. You can NEVER accomplish this. Just give up and stop trying. If Man were meant to fly, he would have given us wings."
Perhaps equally as bad are the Dreamers who don't understand that difficult tasks take great effort. Despite what Defense Department officials tell us, you can't buy a Missile Defense System off the shelf at Wal-Mart. Its not a slam-dunk. The Star Wars boosters shouldn't be telling us that doing the impossible is no big deal. And they certainly shouldn't be giving technological miracles a deadline.
I think a Missile Defense Shield is not a bad thing. I'm also both crazy enough and knowlegeable enough to know not only that it can be done, it can be made reliable. But its not going to be easy, and its not going to be quick.
My criticism of SDI (or whatever we're calling it, now) is how its being managed. The Dreamers are pouring money into it, believing that more resources will make the miracle happen right away. Science doesn't work like that. A better strategy would be to extend R&D over 20, perhaps as many as 50 years, a few hundred million dollars per year. A long-term program, consistently funded, but at a lower rate, would be have better success and be a better value to American taxpayers.
But when there are failures, missteps, malfunctions - the Luddites step forward and say, "See? It's impossible. You can NEVER accomplish this. Just give up and stop trying. If Man were meant to fly, he would have given us wings."
Perhaps equally as bad are the Dreamers who don't understand that difficult tasks take great effort. Despite what Defense Department officials tell us, you can't buy a Missile Defense System off the shelf at Wal-Mart. Its not a slam-dunk. The Star Wars boosters shouldn't be telling us that doing the impossible is no big deal. And they certainly shouldn't be giving technological miracles a deadline.
I think a Missile Defense Shield is not a bad thing. I'm also both crazy enough and knowlegeable enough to know not only that it can be done, it can be made reliable. But its not going to be easy, and its not going to be quick.
My criticism of SDI (or whatever we're calling it, now) is how its being managed. The Dreamers are pouring money into it, believing that more resources will make the miracle happen right away. Science doesn't work like that. A better strategy would be to extend R&D over 20, perhaps as many as 50 years, a few hundred million dollars per year. A long-term program, consistently funded, but at a lower rate, would be have better success and be a better value to American taxpayers.
QUOTE(havnaer @ Dec 19 2004, 07:20 AM)
My criticism of SDI (or whatever we're calling it, now) is how its being managed. The Dreamers are pouring money into it, believing that more resources will make the miracle happen right away. Science doesn't work like that. A better strategy would be to extend R&D over 20, perhaps as many as 50 years, a few hundred million dollars per year. A long-term program, consistently funded, but at a lower rate, would be have better success and be a better value to American taxpayers.
I'm in total agreement with you but for this. It seems many, if not most, great scientific achievements were made with a concerted "big push" effort. Projects like these define technology. I know a guy who works on the optics side of SDI for Boeing, and he speaks of truly amazing stuff that will have all sorts of other wild applications before SDI is even finished.
Plus, a big, showy SDI program in and of itself has lots of uses on the world scene politically.
Its not only that it does not work, but SDI is easly overcome with multitiple dummy warheads. Cheap adjustments can be made to overcome the billions spent on SDI.
QUOTE(david sobien @ Dec 20 2004, 08:49 AM)
Its not only that it does not work, but SDI is easly overcome with multitiple dummy warheads. Cheap adjustments can be made to overcome the billions spent on SDI.
Actually, of all the ways to "shoot a bullet with a bullet," the present design has the highest chance of working. The system's satellites sense the "boost phase" of the enemy missile, calculate its intended target from the trajectory, calculate the apogee and re-entry point, and then the base system sends a missile to that exact spot to arrive at the exact time and go boom. The only better way to do it would be to have airborne or spaceborne missles in orbit ready to kill the enemy missile DURING the boost phase. That would cost far more in support money but be more effective operationally.
I believe this is good science; perhaps not good management or an intelligent time frame, but good science.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.